What then? Do you plan on marching to the white house steps? Do you plan on writing a letter to structural engineers on how to properly build a skyscraper? Or maybe you'll write a per-reviewed paper on the inconsistency of physics.

As I recall I had 9/11/01 off for some reason and a friend of mine called me and told me to turn on the TV. I stood in the middle of the living room with my mouth hanging open watching the collapse of the south tower. So I spent the day watching that madness.

I don't really recall thinking any thing specific that day but I suspect deep down I did not believe a normal airliner could do that to a building that large that fast. For the next two weeks that was about all I could focus my attention on.

I went to college for electrical engineering and my pledge father was an architect. We watched the Sears Tower being constructed from campus. So what goes into skyscraper physics? Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. But the 9/11 Affair has created a very peculiar situation.

Obviously a skyscraper must support its own weight and as you progress up a skyscraper the weight that a given level must support decreases. So in general the amount of steel would decrease up the building. The exception to this would be the mechanical floors which in the WTC were constructed differently from the standard modular truss design which was used on 87 levels. So if the collapse analysis is not done with correct steel and concrete distribution data then it hasn't been done scientifically. Also a skyscraper must withstand the wind which may be high for hours, not just a sudden momentary impact.

The Laws of Physics are not capable of giving a damn about the human race. An asteroid smashing into this planet would no more care about humans than the dinosaurs. So how many people died in New York on 9/11 is totally irrelevant to what airliners could do to 1300 foot skyscrapers. As far as I am concerned people just bring it up as a distraction as though this subject is sacred and should not be dug up. The issue is whether or not the planes and resulting fires could destroy the towers as was seen in the videos. But even if it is proven aircraft could not do it that does not necessarily explain what did, it only means something has been eliminated and further analysis is needed.

But this brings up issues some people choose to ignore. There were witnesses reporting explosions that seemed to have nothing to do with the aircraft. Some reported seconds before the impact. There is the issue of molten metal under the debris which kept the pile hot for a couple of months.

So this 9/11 Affair has not been satisfactorily explained. But to pick on a scientist who supposedly promotes the understanding of science to the masses, take Neil deGrasse Tyson, Titannic Tyson. (I can't resist the alliteration) He complained to James Cameron about the sky in the movie when the ship sank. He has talked about the physics in "Gravity", "Interstellar" and the scientific accuracy of "The Martian". But he sent out a public email letter on 9/12/01 reporting his experiences the day before. He lived within a mile of Ground Zero and had to leave his home because of the dust. He says he heard the buildings come down. I never actually saw them in the flesh.

But what has he said about the physics of skyscrapers or the collapses since then?

NOTHING!

There is too much silence on this subject from people with the certifications to support their statements. This should have been thoroughly resolved in 2002.

Now if you do not like my responses to being insulted by people I regard as dummies then that is too bad. But I am not aware of the NIST doing any models of the collapses and I don't see how one could be done without accurate mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. The most DETAILED data I know of is by Gregory Urich but I have communicated with him about the problems with it but his response is "Red Herring" and banning.

I can understand why some people would prefer to believe the official story because if it is nonsense then that opens a HUGE can of worms. My response is, "The Physics does NOT CARE!"

psik

[/quote]

So your response to "What's your end goal?" is
"I watched 9/11 on TV when it happened. I'm an electrition and I knew a guy that was an architect. Therefore I know physics. I don't care how this affect peoples lives because...Physics. Panicked people said they heard explostions. Neil DeGrasse Tyson lived near the towers. Other people don't talk about this stuff, so their dumb because I found this guy that says he agrees with me. Other people don't see the truth, I do so they should listen to me because.... Physics. Signed stupid catch phrase."

This leads me to believe
1. You have no end goal,
2. You just have a superiority complex.
2. You don't have the slightest idea what your talking about.
3. You don't understand the proper way to respond to a question.

Now I can't help with the superiority complex but I can (hopefully) help you on the proper way of responding to a question.

Quote:Example:
What is your favorite color?Red.

or

What is your favorite color?
I went to a small school in Texas. One of my best friends at the time really liked basket ball. I really like going to the park and planting trees. So people don't realize my favorite color is also the best color.

Which of these two is the proper response?

This will be scored at the end of the semester so please take your time to answer.

While you're thinking that threw I respond to your post. This should give me plenty of time.

Quote:As I recall I had 9/11/01 off for some reason and a friend of mine called me and told me to turn on the TV. I stood in the middle of the living room with my mouth hanging open watching the collapse of the south tower. So I spent the day watching that madness.

I don't really recall thinking any thing specific that day but I suspect deep down I did not believe a normal airliner could do that to a building that large that fast. For the next two weeks that was about all I could focus my attention on.

My 9/11 story is simaler. I was going to college in Philadelphia at the time had just finished taking an shower when I saw all my dorm mates standing around the TV. I thought they were watch the movie Deep Impact. I sat in shock as the second plane hit the tower. I remember saying "I don't know with who, but we're going to war." Classes were canceled that day and talk was going around that another plane was headed for Philadelphia. My Dorm building was near the largest building in Philly, City hall and only a few blocks from so we were worrying that we would be in a bad location. My roommates and I ran out to get food a water if the worst should happen. No one knew what was going on.

Quote:I went to college for electrical engineering and my pledge father was an architect. We watched the Sears Tower being constructed from campus. So what goes into skyscraper physics? Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists. But the 9/11 Affair has created a very peculiar situation.

I went to college of Computer Animation. I had many friends that were going to be architects. I have an Uncle and brother that's an electricians. I currently work as an Locksmith with numerous engineers that have worked in many construction backgrounds. I have a brother that a Marine. Now with that being said. Would and knowing all those people? Would that make me a qualified Chef? I seen boats float on the water dose that make me a sea captain?

Now if you presented yourself as an architectural designer, a structural engineer, engineering scientist, or at most an accule physicist you might have some sort of foundation to climb from. Just because you knew a guy once that was an architect means Jack Shit.

Quote:Obviously a skyscraper must support its own weight and as you progress up a skyscraper the weight that a given level must support decreases. So in general the amount of steel would decrease up the building. The exception to this would be the mechanical floors which in the WTC were constructed differently from the standard modular truss design which was used on 87 levels. So if the collapse analysis is not done with correct steel and concrete distribution data then it hasn't been done scientifically. Also a skyscraper must withstand the wind which may be high for hours, not just a sudden momentary impact.

What a bunch of garbage.

Quote:The Laws of Physics are not capable of giving a damn about the human race. An asteroid smashing into this planet would no more care about humans than the dinosaurs. So how many people died in New York on 9/11 is totally irrelevant to what airliners could do to 1300 foot skyscrapers. As far as I am concerned people just bring it up as a distraction as though this subject is sacred and should not be dug up. The issue is whether or not the planes and resulting fires could destroy the towers as was seen in the videos. But even if it is proven aircraft could not do it that does not necessarily explain what did, it only means something has been eliminated and further analysis is needed.

But this brings up issues some people choose to ignore. There were witnesses reporting explosions that seemed to have nothing to do with the aircraft. Some reported seconds before the impact. There is the issue of molten metal under the debris which kept the pile hot for a couple of months.

So if i'm grasping this ludicrous rant correctly. Your entire argument is that the buildings don't collapse unless it's controlled. The WTC had to have some sort of bombs placed in specific locations in the building with no one seeing or questioning them being placed. Then once that was all done. Waited for a bunch of terrorist to high-jack a plane hope they flew it into the WTC just so they could blow it up just before they smashed into the building? And you believe this because a bunch of panicked eyewitnesses that most likely had no conception on what was going on at the time said they heared explosions prior to impact.

Quote:So this 9/11 Affair has not been satisfactorily explained. But to pick on a scientist who supposedly promotes the understanding of science to the masses, take Neil deGrasse Tyson, Titannic Tyson. (I can't resist the alliteration) He complained to James Cameron about the sky in the movie when the ship sank. He has talked about the physics in "Gravity", "Interstellar" and the scientific accuracy of "The Martian". But he sent out a public email letter on 9/12/01 reporting his experiences the day before. He lived within a mile of Ground Zero and had to leave his home because of the dust. He says he heard the buildings come down. I never actually saw them in the flesh.

Look at Lord Byron over here. Trying to create a complete sentence.

The 9/11 affair has be satisfactorily explained. It's just imbeciles that feel that need to waist their time trying to find the shooter on the grassy knoll or boon mic on the moon landing.

No one is arguing that the towers didn't collapse And saying Tyson lived within a mile of the towers doesn't have anything to do with anything you trying to pitch.

(19-02-2016 03:33 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote: But what has he said about the physics of skyscrapers or the collapses since then?

What? That was your lead up for name dropping. Neil....

(19-02-2016 03:33 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote: NOTHING![/qoute]

Ok, hold on. I wasn't finished. NDT is an Astrophysicist. Which means? ...

He deals with space. Not buildings.

Know who else hasn't talk about physics of skyscrapers of the collapses since then? Martha Stewart, George Bush, Bill Nye...holy fuck do you think it's the illuminate?!

No! No ones talking about because it's been put to bed. It was FUCKING TERRORISTS!

[quote='psikeyhackr' pid='948966' dateline='1455917616']
There is too much silence on this subject from people with the certifications to support their statements. This should have been thoroughly resolved in 2002.

Now if you do not like my responses to being insulted by people I regard as dummies then that is too bad.

Your being insulted by people because you're the dummy. If you don't like being called that then that's to bad.

(19-02-2016 03:33 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote: But I am not aware of the NIST doing any models of the collapses and I don't see how one could be done without accurate mass distribution data on the steel and concrete. The most DETAILED data I know of is by Gregory Urich but I have communicated with him about the problems with it but his response is "Red Herring" and banning.

Quote:I can understand why some people would prefer to believe the official story because if it is nonsense then that opens a HUGE can of worms. My response is, "The Physics does NOT CARE!"

The terrorist plot to attack government buildings and harm lives of people that don't see things their way. By slamming planes into buildings. Is silly to you.

But a government plot to kill it's own citizens, that requires decades of planing so that they can put on an elaborate dog and pony show so that they could ...what? Take over the world? Put security proticals at air ports? To help out the alien overlords? Go to war? Fuck we've gone to war numerous times before that without killing thousands what would this time be so special?

The cross section of the box columns is shown at the bottom of that link.

psik

Ok, I see what you are saying now. I misunderstood. But again, this DOES NOT contradict the established story in any way.

Safety factors range usually from about 1.2-1.6. This is if you use only one safety factor and put all loads together. If you add up your individual loads safety factors range from 0.2 to 0.8. Again, this depends on the engineer in question and how they want to apply it, everything works out the same in the end.

Of course this is for EXPECTED loading. We know that there is a chance of collapse if the structure is overloaded. It's known, and expected. That's what codes are for. If you use a floor designed for bedrooms in an old dorm and pack it with filing cabinets the floor will collapse.

Care to show me where I said anything like that. I said I do not believe airliners could bring the buildings down, I did not say what did. I did say there were witnesses to explosions who get ignored.

I said the way to test this is with a simulation removing levels 91 through 95 which would be more damage than airline impact an fires should be capable of. But it cannot be done without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the tower. Simulations tend to be meaningless otherwise.

Do astrophysicists deal with Black Holes? Do they have some need to know about GRAVITY? Can they comprehend kinetic energy and momentum. Do asteroids collide with anything? So you don't think Tyson can understand the physics of skyscrapers and as a SCIENTIST shouldn't wonder about buildings less than a mile from his home, which he probably saw hundreds of times, supposedly coming down because they were hit by airliners. You figure he does not have the slightest idea about the relative mass of airliners versus 1300 foot skyscrapers?

So many prominent scientists have commented on the ability for airliners to do that. I just can't recall any of them.

As a scientist do you suppose that NDT comprehends the concepts of evidence and proof?

What about experiments? Do you think he has ever heard of those?

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History

With Psikeyhackr professing incredulity about the events as they admit to witnessing on the day. Repeating the claim that they are sure said events (Planes impacting buildings. Fires etc) COULD NOT then have been the cause/responsible for the buildings demise.

AND YET when asked for their thoughts... or ideas, or musings for what then might be the cause or for their explanation of the cause of said events... ?

We see Psikeyhackr tap-dance, obfuscate, avoid, skirt all around anything which might be an explanation.

So, Psikeyhackr cares enough about the events to keep railing about them BUT seemingly doesn't care enough to actually explain their actual thoughts/points of veiw.

(20-02-2016 01:29 PM)Commonsensei Wrote: Now if you presented yourself as an architectural designer, a structural engineer, engineering scientist, or at most an accule physicist you might have some sort of foundation to climb from. Just because you knew a guy once that was an architect means Jack Shit.

I wasn't aware that I was trying to impress anyone with my qualifications.

But how much brains does it take to figure out that skyscrapers must have more steel toward the bottom and that the distribution of concrete must affect the distribution of steel. So anyone with two competent brain cells to knock together should find it peculiar that the NIST could not specify the amount of concrete in the towers. But then the mainstream media has not told everyone that.

I expect 8th graders to understand things that obvious. That is what I find so amusing about the believers in the 9/11 Religion who do not find the collapse time of the north tower peculiar.

9/11 is an intelligence test that only morons can fail.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History

(20-02-2016 01:29 PM)Commonsensei Wrote: Now if you presented yourself as an architectural designer, a structural engineer, engineering scientist, or at most an accule physicist you might have some sort of foundation to climb from. Just because you knew a guy once that was an architect means Jack Shit.

I wasn't aware that I was trying to impress anyone with my qualifications.

You are so much fun to read!

“I have no qualifications or expertise in any of the areas I am giving opinions on, having said that, all of you should really listen to me because my opinions on the matter (for which I have no background on or qualifications for) is right and true.”

ROTFLMAO

Please, don’t stop!

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce